Cornwall Council made a host of significant failings when it accommodated a vulnerable 17 year-old boy in a tent and caravan over a summer, a Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigation has found.

The boy spent five weeks in a tent, four weeks in a static caravan and several nights sleeping rough after approaching the council for help. Following his ordeal he was left emaciated and was detained in a psychiatric hospital for 11 months.

The Ombudsman’s report found on numerous occasions the council, provided accommodation that was inappropriate, it didn’t properly assess the boy’s ability to make decisions about his own safety, and didn’t do enough to protect him from sexual exploitation or ill health.

Read More

Throughout the Ombudsman’s report, evidence suggests the council tried to place responsibility for the situation on the boy, because of his actions, rather than provide the right support to a vulnerable child who was suffering from drug addiction and mental ill health.

The investigation also found the council didn’t properly plan for having enough accommodation for young homeless people, and didn’t coordinate well with other local services such as mental health.

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Michael King, said:“There is a long list of failures in this case which had dreadful consequences for the boy. But the starkest, and most worrying, element is the attitude shown towards his situation. I would have expected an unequivocal response that it was simply wrong to accommodate the boy in this manner.

Read More

“It is true the boy in this case showed difficult behaviours. However, this is exactly why the Children Act exists to support the most vulnerable in our society and councils should not apportion blame when help is needed.

“I now hope Cornwall Council will take this investigation fully on board, and use it to learn where it can improve things so it doesn’t let other young people and their families down in such a way again.”

The events in this case took place over the summer of 2016. The boy had a history of cannabis use and child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) had previously noted concerns about his mental health.

After having been arrested for drug dealing, he was not allowed to return to live with his father so the council housed him in supported accommodation in another town. He was evicted from this placement for breaching conditions of his stay and became homeless.

Read More

The boy refused an offer from the council of supported accommodation 30 miles away from the area he knew. A social worker then bought the boy a tent and helped him pitch it. Council records show the boy’s mother, who lived a long way from Cornwall, challenged the decision to place her son in a tent. The council said no options were available because the boy did not want to come into care. The council asked the mother whether she could accommodate her son, but she could not do so because of the risk to the other children she fostered.

Over the coming weeks the boy asked the council for accommodation on a number of occasions. It also received two calls about his welfare, once after he had been found in an abandoned building having set fire to a mattress to keep warm. Case records show the council said if he could show he wanted to make some changes, his options would increase. At one point the council bought the boy a new tent after the first one started leaking.

Around five weeks after first being given a tent, the council decided the boy was at such risk that it moved him to a static caravan on a different site. The following week he reported being sexually assaulted by a man in a car. There is no evidence the council considered whether to take any action, under section 47 of the Children Act, to safeguard him following this report.

Read More

Around a month later, the council moved the boy to bed and breakfast accommodation. Government guidance says bed and breakfast accommodation is never suitable for children. Shortly after he was moved to appropriate supported accommodation. Two weeks later he was detained under the Mental Health Act, which lasted for 11 months.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services.

In this case the council should pay the, now young man, £2,500 for the effects of its actions on his mental health, lost opportunities and placing him at risk. It should pay the boy’s mother £1,500 for the severe distress and frustration it caused.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve a council’s processes for the wider public.

Read More

In this case the council should review its policies to ensure its procedures for accommodating 16 and 17 year-olds comply with statutory guidance, and ensures it properly considers whether the wishes of young people are rational if they refuse accommodation.

It should also draw up an action plan to ensure there is sufficient accommodation for homeless young people. It should train staff working with homeless young people on the right accommodation to provide, and how to properly record instances of safeguarding referrals.

Statement from Cornwall Council

Cornwall Council accepts the report of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and findings. There were several shortfalls in the response of the Council to the situation Mr B was in between August – October 2016. We have apologised to Mr B and to his mother for those failings.

We take on board the recommendations of the LGSCO. Although this was a unique and exceptional case, we will learn from it and do everything we can to prevent it ever happening again.

A great deal has been done since 2016 to develop a range of housing options for homeless young people.

In the last year the Council has worked with over 100 young people aged 16-17 who have been at risk of homelessness or homeless and needing assistance. This is a growing problem nationally.

In these circumstances the Council treats the young person as if they were in care while its children’s and housing services undertake a joint assessment of their needs.

Working with young people in these circumstances is complex and challenging. There are no easy solutions.

In this particular case, there was a breakdown of relationship with his family and we did not have the legal power to take this young person into care against his will.

Professionals try to work with a young person as an individual, respect their wishes, develop a relationship with them and persuade them to make more positive choices.

Wherever possible, staff are expected to try to mediate between the young person and their parents to sort out the problem and enable them to return home. In the vast majority of cases, as in this case, this is what the young person wants.

In this case the young person’s bail conditions did not allow him to return to live with his father, who lives in Cornwall. He was found ‘supported lodgings’ while the assessment was undertaken, but unfortunately he was asked to leave. He then refused an offer of foster care.

His mother lives outside Cornwall but felt unable to have him home to live with her. She also felt unable to allow the Council to use her holiday property in Cornwall whilst more suitable and permanent accommodation could be found that was acceptable to him.

The worker supporting him felt it was better for him to stay on a campsite rather than for him to become street homeless, with all the risks that entails. However, this went on for too long and there were several points where the Service could have done more to support him.

Throughout this period Mr B wanted to return home to the care of one of his parents, but despite the efforts of the worker this did not prove possible.

He was finally persuaded to accept specialist, supported accommodation for homeless young people.